If this is your first visit be sure to check out the FAQ. You have to REGISTER before you can post. To start viewing threads, select the forum that you want to visit from the list below.NOTICE: YOUR ACCESS HAS BEEN LIMITED UNTIL YOU REGISTER!

In order to ensure your registration and verification goes smoothly and quickly you should edit your user profile and add some content that verifies your not a robot. Add an avatar or profile image, add some location information, setup your signature, send the admin a quick private message, etc. You can make these changes by clicking on "Settings" in the top right corner of the site. Once inside your personal settings control panel, you can click on edit profile or any of the other options to begin your customizations.

Doing this will help the forum moderators verify your registration and allow you access to the entire forum.If you refuse to do this or take steps to verify your humanity, there is a very good chance your account will be deleted instead of verified.Users that look suspicious or have suspicious email addresses and users with no profile information will be deleted without warning.

This is yet another time when the majority of Americans realize the obvious insanity in having such weapons available to any but law enforcement and military, and want them banned, including jail time for those caught with them, owning, buying or selling, yet we have to put up with a bunch of irrational RW idiots, and their BS Denials.

I, for one, will sign every petition, make relentless calls, and e-mails in protest, demanding that they are banned, and hope we can get rid of them all, once and for all!

Your claim that if a particular ammunition round is inferior to others, it is feeble and ineffective at killing people, is amazing, considering it is standard issue to US military forces and law enforcement around the country, and they use it to kill people with great frequency.

Your claim that if a particular ammunition round is inferior to others, it is feeble and ineffective at killing people, is amazing, considering it is standard issue to US military forces and law enforcement around the country, and they use it to kill people with great frequency.

You still don't understand.

It is used by SWAT teams also because it is light accurate, and less lethal than many other rounds.

Beyond that, 5.56 rounds commonly available most assuredly are quite wimpy when compared to the 5.56 rounds eing used in theater in Afghanistan.

Your claim that if a particular ammunition round is inferior to others, it is feeble and ineffective at killing people, is amazing, considering it is standard issue to US military forces and law enforcement around the country, and they use it to kill people with great frequency.

You still don't understand.

It is used by SWAT teams also because it is light accurate, and less lethal than many other rounds.

Beyond that, 5.56 rounds commonly available most assuredly are quite wimpy when compared to the 5.56 rounds eing used in theater in Afghanistan.

Your claim that if a particular ammunition round is inferior to others, it is feeble and ineffective at killing people, is amazing, considering it is standard issue to US military forces and law enforcement around the country, and they use it to kill people with great frequency.

You still don't understand.

It is used by SWAT teams also because it is light accurate, and less lethal than many other rounds.

Beyond that, 5.56 rounds commonly available most assuredly are quite wimpy when compared to the 5.56 rounds eing used in theater in Afghanistan.

Your claim that if a particular ammunition round is inferior to others, it is feeble and ineffective at killing people, is amazing, considering it is standard issue to US military forces and law enforcement around the country, and they use it to kill people with great frequency.

BALLISTICS

"February 2, 2007: Troops from the U.S. Army and Marine Corps are still complaining about the "inadequate stopping power" of the 5.56mm round used in the M-16 family of assault rifles.¬ Last year, the army did a study of current 5.56mm M855 round, in response to complaints. Troops reported many reports where enemy fighters were hit with one or more M855 rounds and kept coming. The study confirmed that this happened, and discovered why. If the M855 bullet hits slender people at the right angle, and does not hit a bone, it goes right through. That will do some soft tissue damage, but nothing immediately incapacitating. The study examined other military and commercial 5.56mm rounds and found that none of them did the job any better. The study concluded that, if troops aimed higher, and fired two shots, they would have a better chance of dropping people right away. The report recommended more weapons training for the troops, so they will be better able to put two 5.56mm bullets where they will do enough damage to stop oncoming enemy troops. Marines got the same advice from their commanders. But infantrymen in the army and marines both continue to insist that the problem is not with their marksmanship, but with the 5.56mm bullet. Marines say they have used captured AK-47 rifles in combat, and found that the lower velocity, and larger, 7.62mm bullets fired by these weapons were more effective in taking down enemy troops.¬

The army study did not address complaints about long range shots (over 100 meters), or the need for ammo that is better a blasting through doors and walls. The army had been considering a switch of a larger (6.8mm) round, and the Special Forces has been testing such a round in the field. But a switch is apparently off the table at the moment.¬ The army report was not well received by the troops, and there is still much grumbling in the ranks over the issue."

The question isn't whether some other round is more deadly. The question is whether the 5.56 is deadly.

The question is exactly that.

Your buddy started with the implication that a BUSHMASTER AR-15 was selected by these murderers because it was the ultimate in lethal weaponry.

The reality is that the BUSHMASTER is a lower end AR, that a long range rifle would be far from the ideal weapon uder such circumtances and that the 5.56 NATO is far from the deadliest round out there.

Your claim that it can be lethal is nonsensical ... by that logic a BB can also be lethal, so shall we also consider a DAISY RED RYDER to be the ultimate deliverer of death?

And after reading SOFLA's link ... who would have guessed it to be selectively quoted to present a false point.

I wonder why the follwing was left out:

"When the 5.56 round was first designed by Remington, it was meant to tumble through a target, not kill with brute force."

"This change increased the accuracy of the 5.56 round out past 500 meters, but decreased its lethality when striking a body."

"This article is meant as a predecessor to a piece in the making on the advantages to switching to a round such as the 6.8 SPC or 6.5 Grendel. The 5.56 round is effective, but could be better."

"My squad member told me ,when he was in Iraq during the invasion, the trouble they had taking down the Saddam Fedayeen. He told me that the marines he was with had to shoot this one fighter nine times and he was still trying to get up"

"Technically I wasnít saying that the 5.56 is a better round than the 7.62, or has more killing power. I just was stating its differences. The 7.62 is a deadlier round ..."

"But if you ask those who were in Vietnam what they thought of their training rifles (7.62) in comparison to their field rifles (5.56), they would gladly shoulder the weight of a 7.62 round vs. a 5.56."

"The 5.56◊45 is too velocity dependent for itís wounding capability, which dosenít make it consistent in itís performance. In Iraq alot of the reports of the 5.56◊45 failing to stop enemy combatants is because the short barrel of the M4 which gives it a fragmentation range of only 45-50m. This is one of the reasons why theyíve come up with rounds like the 6.8 SPC and 6.5 grendel was for better performance out of short barrels and at longer ranges."

"It is ridiculous to even compare the 5.56 to the 7.62X51 (.308 Winchester), the 5.56 may have a 300fps velocity advantage, but the puny 62 grain bullet vs. the heavier 149/150 grain .308 cal bullet canít penetrate as deep, hit nearly as hard or compare to the .308 at long ranges. The 7.62X51 has a larger frontal area, much higher kinetic energy and is vastly superior at any range. The .223 Remington was designed for small game under 100 lbs like coyote and fox not big game. If the author used 5.56 on deer sized game he broke the law. It is illegal to use anything under .24 cal. on big game in all states Iím aware of. Game and Fish departments made this law for a reason; it is inadequate on large animals! It doesnít have the power period."

So ... did you not bother to read what you linked to?

Or ... with no knowledge of weaponry, did you just not understand it?

Or ... did you selectively quote the article to present a false claim?